4 ms·

I see this criticism every now and then but surely it can't be that simple, that all the professionals are just forgetting methane. The argument reminds me of

I see this criticism every now and then but surely it can't be that simple, that all the professionals are just forgetting methane. The argument reminds me of "sceptics" who appeal to "the effect of the sun cycles", as I'd climate scientists wouldn't have thought of that.

DennisP 5y ago
What do you mean by "all the professionals?" There have been a lot of studies on this. There are plenty of lobbyists and politicians who would like you to think it's not a problem, but climate scientists are well aware of it. Aside from that, we need net zero by 2050 and building new gas plants that will last longer than 30 years is not helpful for that.
- Wolfenstein98k 5y ago
  "We need net zero by 2050" is completely arbitrary. New gas plants ARE helpful for cutting emissions if you compare it to the most likely alternative (eg coal). It's only NOT helpful if you compare it to utopia. If you could reliably assume that there will be net zero otherwise, then you wouldn't need to worry about these gas plants would you? They'd be shuttered soon anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
  - DennisP 5y ago
    Yes it is fairly arbitrary. With a bit of googling, looks like a fair number of climate scientists call it "too little too late"[1] and "a dangerous trap" on the grounds that we can't put things off that long[2]. Combined with the benefits of gas being much less than advertised due to leakage, it seems reckless to build new fossil plants of any sort, since we have alternative energy sources that don't emit at all. That's not utopian, it's just the rational direction to take right now. [1] https://www.ccag.earth/newsroom/net-zero-by-2050-is-too-little-too-late-world-leading-scientists-urge-global-leaders-to-focus-on-net-negative-strategies https://www.ccag.earth/newsroom/net-zero-by-2050-is-too-litt... [2] https://theconversation.com/climate-scientists-concept-of-net-zero-is-a-dangerous-trap-157368 https://theconversation.com/climate-scientists-concept-of-ne...

DennisP 5y ago

What do you mean by "all the professionals?" There have been a lot of studies on this. There are plenty of lobbyists and politicians who would like you to think it's not a problem, but climate scientists are well aware of it. Aside from that, we need net zero by 2050 and building new gas plants that will last longer than 30 years is not helpful for that.

Wolfenstein98k 5y ago
"We need net zero by 2050" is completely arbitrary. New gas plants ARE helpful for cutting emissions if you compare it to the most likely alternative (eg coal). It's only NOT helpful if you compare it to utopia. If you could reliably assume that there will be net zero otherwise, then you wouldn't need to worry about these gas plants would you? They'd be shuttered soon anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
- DennisP 5y ago
  Yes it is fairly arbitrary. With a bit of googling, looks like a fair number of climate scientists call it "too little too late"[1] and "a dangerous trap" on the grounds that we can't put things off that long[2]. Combined with the benefits of gas being much less than advertised due to leakage, it seems reckless to build new fossil plants of any sort, since we have alternative energy sources that don't emit at all. That's not utopian, it's just the rational direction to take right now. [1] https://www.ccag.earth/newsroom/net-zero-by-2050-is-too-little-too-late-world-leading-scientists-urge-global-leaders-to-focus-on-net-negative-strategies https://www.ccag.earth/newsroom/net-zero-by-2050-is-too-litt... [2] https://theconversation.com/climate-scientists-concept-of-net-zero-is-a-dangerous-trap-157368 https://theconversation.com/climate-scientists-concept-of-ne...